Dishonesty meaning

In Downtul Ltd [In Liquidation] v Companies Act [2025] IEHC 358, the Irish High Court imposed restrictions for a period of five years on two directors, after determining that they did not act prudently or have proper regard to the interests of Downtul Limited (the Company) as a distinct entity within a complex corporate arrangement. The decision underlines the intricate nature of directors’ obligations in group scenarios and the need to prioritise the interests of each separate company. As a result of the restriction order, the two individuals—each currently sitting on the boards of more than 100 Irish companies—are barred from acting as company directors for five years unless the relevant company has a nominal share capital of at least €100,000 (or €500,000 where the entity is a public limited company or an unlimited company). Background The individuals were directors of the Company, which leased a commercial premises later occupied and run as a Starbucks café by another company, Atercin. They also served as directors of Atercin...

PI & Clinical Negligence weekly highlights—7 March 2024 In this issue: Clinical negligence Fraud and fundamental dishonesty Damages Case management Costs Key PI & Clinical Negligence developments LexTalk®PI & Clinical Negligence: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts Clinical negligence Administrative Court dismisses appeal in clinical negligence claim The King’s Bench Division Administrative Court (Birmingham), in Chilton v Payne [2024] EWHC 451 (Admin), rejected the appellant’s appeal against an order dismissing her claim for damages against the respondent surgeon for negligence. The case concerned an alleged omission by the respondent to provide, or ensure, sufficient abdominoplasty follow-up and/or aftercare. She maintained, among other grounds, that the judge had erred in fact and in law: (i) in concluding there was no breach of the post-operative duty of care; and (ii) in his treatment of factual causation. On appeal, the court affirmed that the judge was right to find no duty on the respondent to...

Insurance & Reinsurance weekly highlights—18 January 2024 In this issue: Ukraine conflict Coronavirus (COVID-19) Cases and decisions Types of insurance Market practice Regulation Solvency II New and updated content Case trackers Key dates Daily and weekly news alerts LexTalk®Insurance: a Lexis®Nexis community Ukraine conflict This week, Scottish practice Brodies LLP confirmed it had supported Ukraine’s Export Credit Agency on an innovative war risks insurance mechanism, extending protection to shipowners and charterers and enabling the nation to move cargo across the Black Sea amid ongoing hostilities with Russia. See News Analysis: Brodies steers war risk insurance for Ukrainian exports. The conflict in Ukraine has profoundly reshaped the aviation insurance sector. Claims on aviation policies have become a central battleground as lessors try to recoup losses for aircraft left in Russia (typically still held and operated by Russian carriers). Consequently, a wave of proceedings has been commenced before the English, US, and Irish...

The creation of the Competition and Market Authority (CMA) in 2013 The establishment of the Competition and Market Authority (CMA) in 2013 coincided with an overhaul of a component of the criminal cartel offence that prosecutors had to prove to convict directors and officers. When the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 (ERRA 2013) commenced on 1 April 2014, the dishonesty element of the cartel offence was scrapped, marking a radical change to what prosecutors had previously been required to establish. Under the revised regime, an individual commits the offence by agreeing, with one or more persons, that two or more undertakings will take part in specified prohibited cartel arrangements (price-fixing, market-sharing, bid-rigging, or limiting output), regardless of dishonesty. Any such arrangements must have occurred in the UK to be caught. As explained further below, this shift is partly offset by new exceptions, covering notification of customers, publication of arrangements, and compliance with a legal requirement, as well as defences, including that the accused did not intend to conceal...

PI & Clinical negligence horizon scanner—July 2025 [Archived] ARCHIVED: This Practice Note is archived and is not maintained. It summarises the principal legal developments relevant to personal injury and clinical negligence practitioners as at July 2025. For developments predating this horizon scanner, see PI and Clinical Negligence horizon scanning and key cases—overview. Key PI and clinical negligence developments The personal injury discount rate—a review In late 2024, the Lord Chancellor, Shabana Mahmood MP, revealed the outcome of her five‑month review of the discount rate, initiated in July 2024. One month after the new +0.5% discount rate took effect, Thea Wilson (barrister at 12 King’s Bench Walk) assesses its impact on cases, the responses from claimant and defendant representatives, and the consequences of the change for legal practitioners. See News Analysis: The personal injury discount rate—a review. MoJ announces reduction in CFO’s interest rates The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has announced lower interest rates for the Courts Funds Office’s (CFO) special and basic accounts...

This Practice Note sets out the offences of fraud by failing to disclose and fraud by abuse of position under sections 3 and 4 of the Fraud Act 2006 (FrA 2006). Each is a means by which the general fraud offence in FrA 2006, s 1 can be committed. These offences are most often brought against professionals, fiduciaries, or those in positions of trust, or with a fiduciary relationship to the victim. Fraud by failure to disclose information An offence of fraud by failing to disclose is made out where a defendant: dishonestly withholds information from another when under a legal duty to reveal it, and intends to secure a gain for themselves or someone else, or intends to cause another a loss, or to expose them to the risk of loss Conduct falling within this description constitutes the general fraud offence under FrA 2006, s 1. The emphasis is on the defendant’s conduct and intention; it does not matter...

1 Should the [ Board OR Remuneration Committee ], at any point in time within [ three ] years from the date a bonus has been paid to you, in its sole and absolute discretion conclude that any event set out in sub-clauses 1.1 to 1.4 of this clause has arisen, it may demand that you repay some or all of the pertinent bonus payment (irrespective of whether you remain in employment with the Company or any other Group Company), with such repayment to be carried out strictly in line with clause 2: 1.1 [ the Company or any other Group Company being required to materially restate all or part of its financial statements OR your gross negligence, fraud, dishonesty or other misconduct having caused or helped to cause the Company or any other Group Company to materially restate all or part of its financial statements ] ; 1.2 your gross negligence, fraud, dishonesty or other misconduct, or your commission of any further act or...